Posted on 08/30/2008 9:10:30 PM PDT by RushingWater
Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration.
Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry.
Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
I heard Mort the nut rip her on Hughs radio show. He was pysco.
I realize that this bill is popular in Alaska. The bill is nothing more than voting yourself someone else's property. If the residents of Alaska want to own mineral rights, they should purchase them.
The US government should auction mineral rights instead of this terrible leasing arrangement. The wireless spectrum has been auctioned creating property rights. The mineral rights in federal areas should be auctioned also.
“Taxing oil in AK is A LOT different than Washington imposing a windfall tax for no reason. Alaskans own the natural resource per the state constitution.”
Excellent point. Palin is an innately great leader. I’m sure BHO and the left are tearing their hair out trying to get dirt on her that just doesn’t exist. What a concept :-)))
That's what happens when you have people who believe that being conservative and being Republican are the same thing.
Increasing taxes is not a good thing and is unnecessary.
It's only "good" for folks whose aim is to manipulate the behavior of others, i.e. distort the markets, something that is most definitely not "conservative" (though whether it is "neoconservative" is a different question).
People seem to forget that FreeRepublic is dedicated to conservative principles, not boosting the GOP.
See my original comment.
That bad... did you get the impression that he was afraid his candidate of choice Obama was in trouble?
Gee, cannot blame Palin for that.
“I realize that this bill is popular in Alaska. The bill is nothing more than voting yourself someone else’s property. If the residents of Alaska want to own mineral rights, they should purchase them. “
WHAT??? Am I missing something here? when you say that the Fed. Govt. should auction the rights off, that sounds like more federal control and take-over, which we do NOT need.
Seems to me that states should indeed own what they (already) have.
Sorry, but it is owned by the State, not the Fed.
Do the oil companies and their share holders, workers, and retirees benefit from higher taxes? Do non-Alaskans benefit from higher taxes on oil from Alaska?
Hey, leave him alone. He’s a business professor. /humor
The state should auction the mineral rights. The residents of Alaska are not owners of mineral rights. You need to engage in an economic transaction to own property. What economic transaction has made the residents of Alaska owners of mineral rights?
Public control is the opposite of property rights. If you support this Alaska bill, you should also support the rat plans for a windfall profits taxes. The rats also claim public ownership of mineral rights. The only difference is that the rats plan to distribute the royalties to a select group of voters. The result is the same: politicians control property rights and decides who benefits without assuming any risks of ownership.
Correct. In fact, Calif. still gets a lease payment from the many capped off wells off of their coast.
“The US government should auction mineral rights instead of this terrible leasing arrangement.”
The thing that’s better about leasing rather than auctioning is that when oil companies lease, they do so based on their preliminary studies and “guesses”, if you will, of what’s beneath the ground. But they don’t know absolutely until they later do more in-depth (pardon the pun) probing, and often-times, they find the oil’s not there - this is what the idiot Dems/Pilosi and Reid don’t get. So, leasing makes sense, because oil companies have ample time to discover and bring resources out of the ground if they’re there, but if not, the lease ends at a specific time and they’re no longer stuck with it.
With “auctioning”, you bought it, you own it - tough luck if oil isn’t found to be there.
The state constitution has encoded legalized theft. If you support this part of the state constitution, you should also support the rat plans to steal oil company profits. The rats claim public ownership of mineral rights entitling them to royalties.
According to the Alaska State Constitution they are.
L
The Alaska constitution says that the people are the owners of the states’ resources. The state is also obliged to develop the resources for the “maixmum benefit of the people.” I’m not saying I agree with it, but that’s what the constitution says.
Please bring a sensible argument to the table. If you think that the Alaska law is different than rat plans, please make your case. It seems that many have a convenient view of property rights. If you can benefit from theft of private property, you think it is ok.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.